Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

This reminds me, was Frozen good? I mean, I know it got good reviews and all, but it seemed because it was a return to form of old Disney, which tbh I don't like in the context of a CGI animated film. But I also heard it does positive things when it comes to characterizing its female leads, so that's cool. I guess this question is more suited for the movie recommendations thread. :P

 

It's a fun movie, I enjoyed it. It's no Wall-E, but it's probably not a waste of your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of feminism specifically, it's definitely a much more nuanced, interesting, and grounded take on the whole princess trope, and the relationship between the sisters is a good narrative focus, but it still bothers me that they get Generic Disney Girl bodies and faces compared to the much more varied and evocative male characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of feminism specifically, it's definitely a much more nuanced, interesting, and grounded take on the whole princess trope, and the relationship between the sisters is a good narrative focus, but it still bothers me that they get Generic Disney Girl bodies and faces compared to the much more varied and evocative male characters.

 

That's a good point. I still liked the movie though, although complaints about being all-white are valid. Also, the movie doesn't quite hang together perfectly in terms of plot or pacing. Still, it's fun and enjoyable and not cringeworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter got this movie and I thought it was pretty great until the first time they broke out into song and dance. I tried to continue watching but those musical sequences just kept yanking me back out of the experience and I couldn't take it any more. Basically, I'm one of those assholes who has a deep disdain for musicals (unless the title of the movie is "Lion King").

 

What about Little Shop of Horrors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frozen is fine. It's more explicitly a musical than other recent Disney outings which were more just cartoons with musical interludes. This was probably written with a specific eye to the success of the Broadway versions of the Lion King and Little Mermaid, I'd be amazed if we don't see Frozen on Broadway within the next 5 years.

 

It got a little oversold, but it's fine. The main selling point is the trope inversions and the music. There's some cute visuals, but it's otherwise somewhat pedestrian. My main complaint is that the world' rules fall apart a little during the finale, but that's more or less expected. The villain is closer to person with a human brain than most classic Disney villains, but not as good as Rapunzel's mother in Tangled, who is in my opinion the best Disney villain since Maleficent (her primary weapon is guilt! How awesome is that?). The reindeer is just a pale imitation of the horse in Tangled.

 

A lot of people complained about the snowman, although I actually liked his writing just fine, I just don't care for Josh Gad's voice.

 

Honestly, my biggest interest in it is who becomes an official Disney princess. Anna, presumably, but will Elsa also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good except it's all about white people because Disney hates non-whites.

 

(I guess it's unwise to make dumb jokes based on random internet comments when I've never seen the movie, but well, I'm the worst, so why stop there.)

I've been thinking about the Princess line recently (because I have a daughter and also, it's sort of fascinating). From a pure brand management perspective, it seems like they should consider adding some more ethnic princesses. I would think they'd want an Asian princess that isn't defined by being butch, but maybe their sales numbers say that isn't an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, my biggest interest in it is who becomes an official Disney princess. Anna, presumably, but will Elsa also?

 

Both are, apparently.

 

You can see Frozen's trope inversions coming a mile off if you're aware that it's going to do something with them. I think most people that complained about the snowman were going off the trailers and what they assumed his role is - in the movie he's a well-handled comic relief character who has some thematic relevance and a little arc. I think it's perfectly competent, and was heartened to see that a movie with two female leads and a female director made maaaaaaad bank because between that and The Hunger Games, there goes the idea that people aren't going to see movies with female leads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...heartened to see that a movie with two female leads and a female director made maaaaaaad bank because between that and The Hunger Games, there goes the idea that people aren't going to see movies with female leads.

 

After seeing The Heat, I saw an interview...with I think Bullock, about how there's a long history of successful movies with female leads.  You can go back to things like Alien and Thelma and Louise and see that audiences will turn out for female heroes and anti-heroes.  It's just that Hollywood pretends they don't exist, and insists that female movies aren't profitable when people pitch them movies. 

 

Things do seem to be getting a bit better though.  The range of movies in the last few years that women have led seems to be significantly more than previous years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heat is kind of an interesting case, because as much as women are dismissed in drama, it's even worse in comedy. Bridesmaids (Melissa McCarthy's breakout role, which lead directly to The Heat) was a big deal because it "proved" you could do gross out bro comedy with a female cast.

There's still a lot of major issues there though, particularly with body issues. Women can't just be funny, they need to sexy funny or weird funny. See Aidy Bryant on SNL, who gets a disproportionate amount of "weird desperate horny girl" simply because she's plus sized.

There are some exceptions, particularly in female produced material, but that's mostly TV stuff, because it's less risky to buck the "accepted wisdom" there. Contrast Tina Fey, who the media rushed to make into a sexy-funny actress with Amy Poehler, who is allowed to just be herself (probably due to less overall exposure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title they ran with that is so shitty. The AV Club used to be one of the best sites for pop culture shit, but they've fallen pretty far lately.

 

Firing/losing (I don't know which it was) most your staff to a competitor will do that! Read The Dissolve now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title they ran with that is so shitty. The AV Club used to be one of the best sites for pop culture shit, but they've fallen pretty far lately.

 

Yeah, the title is bad, especially seeing the URL abridges it to "rape thrones", but I think it's a fine piece, maybe one of the best to send to a friend making fun of you for complaining about "insignificant" changes between the books and the show. It's very weird to watch Game of Thrones and see many events rewritten to give more to their characters, but the sex/rape scenes often stripped down at the same time to be more brutal and traumatizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the purpose of making it a rape was to emphasize that, no, Jaime is not a good guy after all, he may be sympathetic, but he's still a royal asshole.

 

Not that that justifies it, because that just makes it a plot device, which is where it would be a real problem, but I really can't think of any other reason they'd change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the purpose of making it a rape was to emphasize that, no, Jaime is not a good guy after all, he may be sympathetic, but he's still a royal asshole.

 

Not that that justifies it, because that just makes it a plot device, which is where it would be a real problem, but I really can't think of any other reason they'd change it.

 

Yeah, I guess. I don't know, Jaime's arc in the books is so interesting because the events of the first couple books teach you to loathe him as the enemy, but then as things begin to get rough for the Lannisters you see that actually he is one of the most honest and incorruptible people in that world, it's just that he doesn't care if anyone else knows. I can't imagine what sort of character arc the show's writers could devise that would be an improvement on that one, but then again my imagination's not always so great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AV Club actually has a second article about the episode that makes a pretty strong counterpoint against the first linked AV Club article.

 

Basically that the passage in the book is written directly from Jaime's point of view, and that he would NEVER view himself as raping his sister. And so her feeble cries of protestation are viewed as her really wanting it, but just not wanting to violate propriety. You never get Cersei's view of that encounter, and her relationship with Jaime goes straight into the shitter following this, which would make sense if she was just raped by her brother-lover.

 

Personally I still think the show producers are simply erring on the side of delivering "shocking" visuals for effect, but I think the AV Club's other interpretation likely has a bit of merit there in the source material as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to ask what their relationship is like after the events in the book, but... I forgot to??? I don't know what happened to that sentence I typed! That does make some sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to ask what their relationship is like after the events in the book, but... I forgot to??? I don't know what happened to that sentence I typed! That does make some sense.

 

It's a slow death in the books, mostly from Jaime's point of view when he comes back to King's Landing and discovers that nothing's where he left it and he doesn't know why. I can understand wanting to make their falling-out less protracted and less subtle for a TV audience, but I liked in the books how Jaime seemed to have several very arbitrary but weirdly "honorable" lines, one of which would be never to raise a (golden) hand against his sister. So the rape makes sense, I just don't think it's the best choice for what I assume they want to do. Then again, anything that makes Cersei's actions from here on out seem less "crazy bitch" is fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent (though somewhat spoilery) analysis of one of Game of Thrones' latest twists was just put up on the AV Club: http://www.avclub.com/article/rape-thrones-203499

 

I laughed at this scene. It's completely absurd. How am I supposed to take these characters seriously from now on? They are just vehicles to deliver shock, nothing else has meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really feel any strong feelings towards the scene. It's Game of Thrones. 

 

After I watched it I went on the internet and was like, ''Oh. This.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AV Club actually has a second article about the episode that makes a pretty strong counterpoint against the first linked AV Club article.

 

Basically that the passage in the book is written directly from Jaime's point of view, and that he would NEVER view himself as raping his sister. And so her feeble cries of protestation are viewed as her really wanting it, but just not wanting to violate propriety. You never get Cersei's view of that encounter, and her relationship with Jaime goes straight into the shitter following this, which would make sense if she was just raped by her brother-lover.

 

Personally I still think the show producers are simply erring on the side of delivering "shocking" visuals for effect, but I think the AV Club's other interpretation likely has a bit of merit there in the source material as well. 

 

That's an interesting angle, but there is no other point in the books that plays with unreliable narrators to that degree. People misinterpret things and there's a lot of dramatic irony, but generally everything shown to the reader is meant to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the books are all narrated third person omniscient, so there's not really scope for unreliability in that way. I haven't read that second article yet, though, so perhaps it argues that particular passage does different things specifically to achieve that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall the books being third-person subjective, but it's been a while since I read them. So I guess it's not fair for me to disagree because my memory is shiiiiit. It's also entirely possible that that's just how I naturally see things when the character of focus shifts from chapter to chapter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×